Propaganda Behind the Clean Chit to Modi
SIT
has not given a Clean Chit to Modi. In both reports, first filed in May 2010
before the Supreme Court (that includes Chairman RK Raghavan's Comments
separately) and the Closure report filed before the Magistrate on 8.2.2012, the
SIT has held that while there is evidence and many of the allegations made in
the Zakia Jafri Complaint dated 8.6.2006 are true and correct, in its own assessment,
this evidence is not prosecutable. This is not a clean chit to Modi as is
being propagated.
Besides Amicus Curaie
Raju Ramachandran’s Report to the SC clearly stated that Modi should stand
trial for offences under Section 153(a), 153(b) and166 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Key
Points of May 2010 SIT Report Contrasted with 2012 Closure Report
I.
Callous and Communal Mindset of Modi (chief minister and state home minister
since 2002)
A. Modi’s
Communal Mindset The SIT Report (May 2010) report says, “In spite of the fact that ghastly and
violent attacks had taken place on Muslims at Gulberg Society and elsewhere,
the reaction of the government was not the type that would have been expected
by anyone. The chief minister had tried to water down the seriousness of the
situation at Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya and other places by saying that
every action has an equal and opposite reaction.” (Page 69 of the SIT Report to the SC, May 2010)
B. Modi’s
Discriminatory Attitude. The 2010 SIT report to the SC says Modi displayed a “discriminatory attitude by not visiting the
riot-affected areas in Ahmedabad where a large number of Muslims were killed,
though he went to Godhra on the same day, travelling almost 300 km on a single
day.” (Page 67) The SIT chairman also comments that “Modi did not cite any specific reasons why he did not visit the
affected areas in Ahmedabad city as promptly as he did in the case of the
Godhra train carnage.” (Page 8 of
chairman’s comments, SIT report to SC May 2010)
C. Sweeping and
Offensive Statements by Modi. SIT Chairman RK Raghavan (May 2010 to the SC)
further comments that Modi’s statement “accusing
some elements in Godhra and the neighbourhood as possessing a criminal tendency
was sweeping and offensive coming as it did from a chief minister, that too at
a critical time when Hindu-Muslim tempers were running high.” (Page 13 of SIT chairman Raghavan’s comments, SIT report to SC May 2010)
D. Modi Justified
Killing of Innocents. The inquiry officer (AK Malhotra also notes: “His (Modi) implied justification of the
killings of innocent members of the minority community read together with an
absence of a strong condemnation of the violence that followed Godhra suggest a
partisan stance at a critical juncture when the state had been badly disturbed
by communal violence.” (Page 153 of
the SIT Report to SC, dated May 2010)
E.
Modi’s
Election Gaurav Yatra Speech at Behacharaji, Mehsana controversial and
definitely hinted at a growing minority population. The explanation given by Shri Modi is
unconvincing and it definitely hinted at the growing minority population. (Page 160
SIT Report to SC, May 2010). Excerpts of Text of Speech at Annexure
1.
SIT Closure Report (2012):
While the amicus finds the words spoken by the chief minister an offence, an
incitement to violence and hatred against a particular section of the Indian
people, in its closure report, the SIT finds that no criminal offence has been
committed and recommends a closure of these allegations.
On
the ‘action-reaction’ statement: “As per Modi’s version, he
had not and would never justify any action or reaction by a mob against
innocents. He had denied all allegations in this regard.” Zee TV never sent a
copy of the interview, says the SIT. Their correspondent Sudhir Chaudhary told
the SIT the Editors’ Guild report contained only excerpts and he did not have
the original CD. He did recollect Modi’s reply that a mob “had reacted on
account of private firing done by Jaffri, the SIT says. Chaudhary told the SIT
Modi was of the view that he wanted neither action nor reaction. Modi
reportedly said: “Godhra mein parson hua… jiski pratikriya ho rahi hai”
but Chaudhary could not recount the exact sequence” (pgs 482-483, SIT Closure Report).
“As regards the public speech delivered
at Becharaji, Mehsana district, on September 9, 2002, as a part of Gaurav
Yatra, Modi has explained that the speech did not refer to any particular
community or religion. According to Modi,
this was a political speech in which he has pointed out the increasing population of India and had remarked that
‘can’t Gujarat implement family planning?’
Modi has claimed that his speech has been distorted by some interested elements who had misinterpreted
the same to suit their designs. He has
also stated that there were no riots or tension after his election speech. No criminality has come on record in
respect of this aspect of allegation” (p. 272, SIT Closure Report).
E. Modi Government Took No Steps to Stop
Illegal Bandh. According
to the SIT report of 2010 to the SC, the Gujarat government did not take any
steps to stop the illegal bandh called by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on 28
February 2002. On the contrary the BJP had supported the bandh. (Page
69, SIT Report to SC, May 2010)
(It is important to
remember that it was Hindu mobs mobilised by the local VHP and BJP leaders in
the name of bandhs that had carried out the horrific massacres at Naroda and
Gulberg Society on 28 February 2002 and those all over the state over the next
days. March 1 was a state wise bandh when massacres at Randhikpur-Sanjeli,
Sardarpura, Sesan, Odh, Pandharwada and Kidiad among others took place)
F. Modi as Home Minister did not Act
to prosecute Hate Speech. According to the SIT report of 2010 to the
SC, despite detailed reports recommending strict action submitted to Modi by
field officers of the State Intelligence Bureau, Modi as Home Minister failed
to take action against a section of the print media that was publishing
communally- inciting reports, inflaming base emotions. This had vitiated the
communal situation further. (Page 79,
SIT Report to SC, May 2010)
G. Modi as Home Minister responsible for
Destruction of Crucial Records. The 2010 SIT report to the SC says “The Gujarat government has reportedly
destroyed the police wireless communication of the period pertaining to the
riots.” It adds, “No records, documentations or minutes of the crucial law and
order meetings held by the government during the riots had been kept.” (Page 13, SIT Report to SC, May 2010)
II. SIT Confirms the
Serious Allegation that Godhra Dead Bodies were handed over to Jaideep Patel of
the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in an illegal and controversial move. Jaideep Patel
of the VHP was also allowed to attend an official meeting at the Collectorate,
Godhra.
In
the 2010 SIT Report to the SC, the SIT says, “SIT inquiry revealed that there was in fact a discussion at Godhra on
the final disposal of bodies of those killed in the Godhra carnage. This was
during chief minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the town on the afternoon of
February 27, 2002. It was held at the collectorate. It is not clear who all were
present or consulted. Apart from the district collector, the presence at least
of Gordhan Zadaphiya (MoS, home) and Jaideep Patel, VHP activist, has been
confirmed…..”… (pgs 19-23, SIT Report to the SC, May 2010;
pgs 2-3, Chairman’s Comments, SIT report to SC May 2010).
SIT Closure Report 8.2.2012 also admits that
Jaideep Patel transported the dead bodies to Ahmedabad
“The above facts
would go to establish that though a letter had been addressed by mamlatdar, Godhra, to Patel of VHP….Nalvaya,
mamlatdar, has acted in an
irresponsible manner by issuing a letter in the name [of] Patel in token of
having handed over the dead bodies which were case property and therefore the
government of Gujarat is being requested to initiate departmental proceedings
against him”
(p.
463, Closure Report).
III. Narendra
Modi did hold a meeting on 27 February 2002.
But Did he tell his
officers to let Hindus vent their anger freely against Muslims? SIT claims
there is no conclusive evidence but holds that no minutes of an Official law
and Order Meeting (as is Standard Operational Procedure) were maintained.
In arriving at its conclusion that ‘there is no
conclusive evidence’ of the criminal statement by Modi, the SIT has discarded
the evidentiary statements of Justices PB Sawant, Hosbet Suresh, former MOS
Revenue, GOG, Haren Pandya, Suresh Mehta, and
Sanjiv Bhatt. It has accepted the evidence of those IAS and IPS officers who
are co-accused in the Zakia Jafri Complaint dated 8.6.2006 that include former
chief secretary Subha Rao, former ACS Home Ashok Narayan, former DGP, K
Chakavarthi, former Principal Secretary, CMO, PK Mishra, former Commissioner of
Police, Ahmedabad, PC Pande.
SIT
Report to SC in May 2010 “In
the light of the above, a law and order meeting was in fact held by Modi at his
residence late in the evening of February 27. However, the allegation that
chief minister instructed the chief secretary, DGP and other senior officials
to allow the Hindu community to give vent to their anger on the minority
Muslims in the wake of Godhra incident is not established” (p.
19, SIT report to SC, May 2010).
IV. SIT Accepts that in a Controversial
Move Ministers were stationed in the Ahmedabad City and State Control Rooms
The SIT Report to the SC, May 2010, says, in
an extremely “controversial” move, the government of Gujarat had placed two
senior ministers — Ashok Bhatt and IK Jadeja — in the Ahmedabad city police
control room and the state police control room during the riots. The SIT
chairman comments that the two ministers were positioned in the control rooms
with “no definite charter”, fuelling
the speculation that they “had been
placed to interfere in police work and give wrongful decisions to the field
officers”. “The fact that he (Modi)
was the cabinet minister for Home would heighten the suspicion that this
decision had his blessings.” (Page
12 of chairman’s comments in SIT report to SC, May 2010)
(It
is to be noted that Ashok Bhatt’s cell phone analysis showed that he was in
touch with VHP leader Jaideep Patel, a key conspirator of the Naroda Gaon and
Naroda Patiya massacre, and with Gordhan Zadaphia, the then minister of state
for home and who is now seen by the SIT as a major culprit of the Ahmedabad
massacres.)
SIT Closure Report (8.2.2012)
also admits that Ministers were stationed in the Control Rooms, Ahmedabad and
State but says it was not a “significant” presence
“Therefore the
allegation that the two ministers were positioned in the state control room and
Ahmedabad city police control room by the chief minister is not established. Significantly, IK Jadeja remained at state
police headquarters for two-three hours as per his own admission but did not
interfere in the police functioning. Late Ashok Bhatt’s presence in the city
police headquarters on the relevant day, if any, was very negligible and it cannot be termed of any
material value. In the absence of documentary/oral evidence of any directions
given by these two ministers to police officials, it cannot be said at this
stage that they conspired in the perpetration of riots or did not take any
action to control the riots” (pgs 474-475, SIT Closure Report, 8.2.2012).
V. Criminally Negligent Actions by Joint CP Tandon and
SCP PB Gondia who were subsequently rewarded by the Modi government for their
criminality.
The former Ahmedabad
joint commissioner of police MK Tandon, in whose area around 200 Muslims were
killed, has been found guilty of deliberate dereliction of duty. (Post the
riots, however, far from being censored, he got one lucrative posting after
another and retired as additional director general of police in June 2007.) His
junior, former deputy commissioner of police PK Gondia, has also been found
guilty of willfully allowing the massacres. The
SIT says that if the two had just carried out their duty hundreds of Muslims
could have been saved. (Pages 48-50
of the SIT Report to the SC, May 2010) Neither of these officers was held
accountable by the Modi government. The first SIT report recommended further
investigation as has been detailed at Annexure 2.**
Even
the SIT closure report dated 8.2.2012 holds that
The closure report is forced
to concede that the actions of Tandon and Gondia were questionable. However, in
its view, a simple departmental inquiry was all that was called for. Going back
on its own earlier findings, the SIT now also exonerates Tandon and Gondia for
being in close telephonic contact with two accused persons: Dr Mayaben Kodnani
and Shri Jaideep Patel (p. 496, Closure Report, dated 8.2.2012).
“The conduct of Tandon and Gondia was
unprofessional and unbecoming of senior police officers.” However, “the basic
requirements for prosecution under the above Section (304A) are that the acts
(including omission) must be rash or negligent… Considering all the
circumstances, evidence on record and the defence available with the suspect
police officers (Tandon and Gondia), it may not be possible to prosecute them
for the offence under Section 304A as proposed by amicus curiae…” (pgs 499-503, Closure Report, 8.2.2012).
VI. SIT found evidence against Zadaphiya, MOS Home
The SIT has also
found evidence against the then minister of state for home Gordhan Zadaphia
(who was reporting directly to Modi) for his complicity in the riots. Another
BJP minister Mayaben Kodnani has already been booked in the Naroda Patiya
massacre. (Pages 168-169, SIT Report to
the SC, 2010)
|
|
VII. Patently Partisan Investigations by Gujarat Police
Top Cops to Shield Ministers and VHP men and Women
The SIT accepted the
allegation that the state police had carried out patently shoddy investigations
in the Naroda Patiya and Gulberg Society massacre cases. It deliberately
overlooked the cell phone records of Sangh Parivar members and BJP leaders
involved in the riots — prominent among them were the Gujarat VHP president
Jaideep Patel and BJP minister Maya Kodnani. “If these records had been analysed and used as evidence, it could have
established their complicity.” (SIT
report to SC, May 2010, Pages 101-105)
VIII. Modi Rewarded
the Officers who Acted Illegally and Punished those who Acted Lawfully
Upright officers penalised
The 2010 SIT to the
SC report affirms that police officers who took a neutral stand during the
riots and prevented massacres were transferred by the Gujarat government to
insignificant postings. SIT’s Chairman Raghavan has termed these transfers “questionable” since “they came immediately
after incidents in which the officers concerned were known to have antagonised
ruling party men”. (Pages 7-8 of
chairman’s comments in SIT Report to SC, May 2010)
The
upright officers who were penalised for performing their constitutional duty
include IPS officers Rahul Sharma, Vivek Srivastava, Himanshu Bhatt and
Satishchandra Verma.
“It is true that there were a few such
transfers which were in fact questionable, especially because they came
immediately after incidents in which the officers concerned had known to have
antagonised ruling party men… Neither police officer would however admit he had
been victimised (pgs 32-36, Report to SC dated May 2010, and
p. 8, Chairman’s Comments to SC, May 2010).
Guilty cops rewarded
The
SIT report dated May 2010 to the SC admits the allegation that police officers
who allowed riots to fester were rewarded with lucrative postings.
·
MK Tandon, who was the joint commissioner of police of Sector
II, Ahmedabad, in 2002 and in whose jurisdiction more than 200 Muslims were
butchered to death, was given the important post of inspector-general (IG),
Surat range, soon after the riots. In July 2005 he was appointed to the post of
ADGP (law and order) at the state police headquarters, a position with
statewide jurisdiction. Tandon retired from the same position.
·
PB Gondia, deputy to Tandon, was DCP, Zone IV, at the time.
He was promoted to the powerful post of IGP, State CID, and now enjoys the post
of joint director, civil defence.
·
In addition to these police officers, there were other
controversial bureaucrats and policemen who have remained high in the favour of
the government despite their black track records. Among them are G. Subbarao
(then chief secretary); Ashok Narayan (then ACS, home); PK Mishra (then PS to
Modi); PC Pande (then CP, Ahmedabad city); Deepak Swaroop (then IGP, Vadodara
range); K. Nityanandam (then secretary, home); Rakesh Asthana (then IG and
currently CP, Surat city) and DG Vanzara (now in jail for staging encounter
killings).
IX. Partisan prosecutors appointed. The SIT 2010 Report
to the SC confirms that the government appointed VHP and RSS-affiliated
advocates as public prosecutors in sensitive riot cases. The report states: “It appears that the political affiliation
of the advocates did weigh with the government for the appointment of public
prosecutors.” (Page 77 of the SIT
report to the SC, May 2010) The SIT chairman (RK Raghavan) further comments
that “it has been found that a few of the
past appointees were in fact politically connected, either to the ruling party
or organisations sympathetic to it.” (Page
10 of chairman’s comments to SIT report to SC, May 2010)) ##
“It appears that the political
affiliation of the advocates did weigh with the government for the appointment
of public prosecutors” (p. 77, SIT Report to the SC, May
2010). The allegation is
partly substantiated” (p. 238, SIT Report to SC May 2010).
Also, “It has been found that a few of
the past appointees were in fact politically connected, either to the ruling
party or organisations sympathetic to it” (p. 10, Chairman’s Comments,
SIT report, May 2010). Details of the partisan appointments are at
Page 157 of the SIT Report to the SC and annexed here in Annexure 3.
X.
Gujarat Government Misled the Chief Election Commission. The SIT Report of
2010 to the SC also asserts that in August 2002, in a bid to ensure an early
Assembly election, top officials of the Modi government misled the Central
Election Commission by presenting a picture of normalcy when the state was
still simmering with communal tension. (Page
79 to 86, SIT Report to SC, May 2010). (The
BJP had prematurely dissolved the Assembly on 19 August 2002, nine months
before the expiry of the five-year term, and demanded an early election. The
BJP clearly wanted to take electoral advantage of the communal polarisation.)
Ends
(Annexures 1, 2 and 3 in separate
attachment)
SIT Reports on
Gujarat 2002 are available at www.cjponline.org
1.
IO AK Malhotra’s Report, May 2010 at http://www.cjponline.org/zakia/SIT%20Enquiry_Report_In%20ZAKIA%20CASE.pdf
2.
Chairman RK Raghavan’s Comments to May 2010 report
at http://www.cjponline.org/zakia/Chairman%20Raghavans%20Comments%2014.5.2010.pdf
3.
Closure Report dated 8.2.2012 at
and below
